Do you agree or not based on your experience/observation?

[axebahia]

Study finds gay unions brief

By Amy Fagan

Published July 11, 2003

The Washington Times

 

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages."

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.

Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

Same-sex "marriage" has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual "marriages."

The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.

In "The Male Couple," published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity.

"Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other," the authors said. "Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others."

Such findings show how recognition of same-sex unions would "erode the ideal" of traditional marriage, Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

"They're redefining what it means to be monogamous," Mr. LaBarbara said. "It's just preposterous to claim that these relationships even approximate normal, steady relationships."

The Amsterdam study is "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed," Mr. LaBarbara said.

But homosexual groups say recent data indicate that homosexual relationships look increasingly like heterosexual marriage.

About 40 percent of homosexual couples had been together in a household for at least five years, compared to roughly 60 percent of married heterosexual couples who had been together at least that long, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data produced for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation.

The HRC analysis found that relationships were shortest for unmarried heterosexual partners living together, only 18 percent of whom had been together in the household for at least five years.

"Anecdotally, there's quite a bit of evidence that as gays and lesbians are becoming more accepted, you're finding greater levels of stability," said Gary Gates, a researcher for the Urban Institute who compiled the data for HRC, which supports same-sex "marriage."

Mr. Gates said 25 percent of male homosexual couples had children in the household and 38 percent of lesbian couples had children in the household, compared with 48 percent of heterosexual married couples. And 66 percent of the male homosexual couples and 68 percent of lesbian couples owned their home, compared with 81 percent of heterosexual married couples. He said these are signs of increasing stability.

David Smith, spokesman for HRC, dismissed the Amsterdam study, saying he personally has been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years and, "most gay people I know have been in relationships many, many years and they're absolutely monogamous."

He said his personal experience is that homosexuals settle down just like heterosexuals.

He also said those throwing out "wild charges" that homosexuals are promiscuous are hypocritical because they will not let same-sex couples have marriage rights, which would provide even more stability under the law.

But Mr. LaBarbara said marriage would not change the promiscuity he called "rampant" among homosexuals. He said on the contrary, same-sex "marriage" would just "erode [marriage] further."

The state of Vermont has allowed civil unions between same-sex couples since 2000, and a study by two University of Vermont psychology professors compared homosexual couples in civil unions with homosexual couples not in unions, and married heterosexual couples.

Among the Vermont findings, the overwhelming majority of women — both lesbians and married heterosexuals — felt it was not acceptable to have sex outside of their primary relationship. However, 79 percent of married men felt sex outside marriage was not OK, compared to 34 percent of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50 percent of homosexual men in civil unions.

But such open relationships — in which homosexual men accept that their partners will have sex with others — are not harmful, said Anne Peplau, a psychology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people — but this is not typically harmful to their relationships because partners agree that it's acceptable," said Miss Peplau. "Many heterosexual men also are non-monogamous, but may be more secretive about their behavior."

However, Peter Sprigg, director of Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council, pointed to a 1997 national survey published in the Journal of Sex Research that found 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

According to 2001 data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 67 percent of first marriages last 10 years, and 50 percent last 20 years. Marriages involving teenagers are more prone to divorce; for marriages in which the bride is at least age 20, about 60 percent last 20 years, according to NCHS data.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

The Paper Of Record

 

I lack confidence in the Washington Time's ability to publish an accurate article based on scientific research. In addition, this is a retrospective analytical study, not a purely scientific one.

 

Notwithstanding that, the journal Aids is extremely reputable and I would be interested in finding the actual study and also curious as to why it was published there, versus in a more sociologically based journal.

 

Finally, on a purely personal and unscientific note, excepting my parents (and my father is now deceased) and the parents of some of my school age friends from secondary school and college, the longest lasting relationship I know of is between two men who still sleep and live together in the same home they purchased on Union Street in San Francisco in 1947. It is (and was) their first relationship.

[Bilbo]

RE: Anecdotal evidence

 

Based on my personal experience/observation, as your title asked, I would say that the article is extremely accurate. All of my relationships have been open relationships and, as the article says, we have found other, to us more important things to base our relationships on than monogamous sexual fidelity. Society has been so disrespectful of our relationships that we have been in the position of outsiders, with the freedom that gives to observe what is really going on from a different perspective and use that knowledge to invent what will really work for ourselves. And it does work, I mentioned on another thread recently how many couples I know who have been together anywhere from 15 - 35 years. And, while the number of lesbian relationships falling into that range or longer is larger, the number of gay male relationships doing so would surprise many people. Further, the thread here on how many clients are married, also recent, would support the article's claim that many hetero males are actually treating their relationships as if they and their spouses had decided to have an open relationship. Also, the more our relationships are accepted, the less the sociatal pressures on us to break up, the more we stay together, just as the article said. So, yay article!!!

[Gigiloz4me]

I’m not clear why we i.e. our community, haven’t taken a leadership position with regard to gay unions and 1) agree we are ‘different from heterosexuals’ 2) make no excuses for it 3) refuse to be defined by their failing institution 4) ‘legally define’ our relationships 5) map the legal and social benefits/customs WE want and 6) LIVE our defacto charter and focus our energy ensuring our tenets are socially respected and legally refined in the courts.

 

What is the worst thing that could happen? Appear organized and focused? Sense our economic power? Confirm for all the world to see that we ‘set the trends’ not follow them?

 

Our current strategy suffers from ‘self-esteem’ issues and, in my opinion, a reflection of our provincial, un-elected representatives on this matter. When has a ‘conformist strategy’ ever effectively delivered anything NEW?

 

So, how do we get started? Unity. Self-discrimination remains our Achilles heel and THEY know it.

[+ honcho]

RE: The Paper Of Record

 

Based on my observations, If women were as sexually available to straight men as gay men were to each other, then the average length of heterosexual unions would not be nearly as long.

 

My dad is on wife number 4, and had a serious and torrid affair during that one after 20 years of marriage starting about about age 65.

 

Men (straight and gay) are testerone poisoned sex crazed pigs; I'm one big time, and I say that owning it.

[giovoni]

BRAVO!

 

This is a great illustration of how I feel and have always wanted a way to express it.. THANKS.. .

 

To perhaps go further then what you said I feel that the absolute worst thing we can do is try to pretend we're exactly like heterosexuals in marriage and then try to mold ourselves into straight marriages that have same sex couples.

 

The thought that we would beg the world to let us have an institution that was basically started to make women the property of men is mind boggling and in an issue where we could take the lead and redefine a partnership we are instead crawling on our knees to embrace an anachronism.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[VaHawk]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

>The thought that we would beg the world to let us have an

>institution that was basically started to make women the

>property of men

 

Well, I for one, would like to know on what evolutionary, scientific and or historical studies you base this statement on? Humans are not the only biological species that choose a mate for life.

 

In the early evolutionary history of humans, they lived in small groups consisting of a dominant male and several females. As time passed and the groups evolved into societies, it became natural for that society to have several males each paired with a single female. These two were usually mated for life and both were essential for the survival of the species - neither owned the other.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

Derek and I were in a completely monogamous relationship from the ages of 17 & 18 until 30 & 31, at which point we chose to open things up ("things" like our mouths, our legs, etc.) just to see how the other half lives (the half that was having all the fun) and we haven't looked back since (except for when we pass a hottie on 8th Ave; then we might glance over our shoulders and/or get his number or just take him right home).

 

If you'd asked me in my 20's, I would have said that gay men are monogamous by nature because our small circle of friends consisted of other gay couples in love who didn't need to play around. After we started going out & meeting guys, we kind of outgrew those old friends and acquired a new bunch who were wild & promiscuous. We never really fit into either group though, and...

 

Okay, now I'm losing my train of thought. This is partially because Derek just came out of the bedroom with his client (who is also my client every other week) and I got distracted. It's also because, at the same time, my moo shoo chicken just arrived and I'm starving. So...I hope my point will come back to me later. If it doesn't, then I'll just say now that you can't make statements about most gay people because we're all different. I've lived on both sides of the monogamy fence (that sounded so "Devon," no?) and I was perfectly content on both sides. Sort of.

[Gigiloz4me]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

... CHANGE the channel!!!

[TotallyOz]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

Well, I have been in monogamous relationships and open relationships. After many years of wisdom and advise from older gay men who have been together for many years, I have developed my philosophy of MER (Monogamy with Exception Rules). What this means is that no matter what, I believe in honestly. Honestly, I can't be totally monogamous to anyone. I can try. But, it is hard. My current relationship is 4 years into the making. We are doing fine. We play around in three ways and we often hire escorts. There are times when we play separately. But, there are certain rules we have when this happens and we negotiated this before other encounters. Most gay relationships I have known that lasted have some exceptions.

 

One gay couple I know, take a week away from each other every six months to play in different cities. One couple I know only does three ways. One couple I know hires escorts once a week. Each couple should be able to decide what their rules are going to be.

 

I have this discussion with my sister all the time. She doesn't understand why I have sex with someone other than my partner and why our feelings don't get hurt when this happens. I try to explain that I love my partner and would not leave him over sexual escapades. She swears up and down that should her husband have sex with another woman, she would cut off his dick. I think she is serious. Me, being the lover of dick that I am, could never do that. Also, if my partner decided to fuck a woman, I would not be upset, I would be happy for his, yet shocked!

 

I love sex with my partner. But, I also like variety every once in a while. I think it only strengthens our relationship.

[VaHawk]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

So well said, plus very humorous! Your sister's name isn't Lorena is it? Lorena and John did their scene in my hometown, and every time I think about it, I LMAO picturing the local cops scouring the roadsides with flashlights looking for that poor lost little member of the flock.

 

Seriously, all of my past relationships have broken up over the monogamy issue. I'm sorry, just not my scene, nope, no way no how! Tried but just can't do it.

x(

[giovoni]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

Who presided over the 'marriage' of these groups? A wise baboon? I sage Giraffe? An elephant so he could remember which pairings were which? If you didn't love to let your assumptions communicate for you, you would have noticed that I said nothing disparaging about two men or women settling down together for life. MARRIAGE is not a guarantee of sexual fidelity, emotional faithfulness or happiness. Just come watch our business, as I've mentioned before, whenever a religious group or the <retch> 'promise keepers' come to Denver.

 

If you think Marriage has a great track record of honoring a biological proclivity to settle down with a mate then you've never read a history book or talked to a woman in your life. I've nothing against men or women being monogamous and celebrating that commitment in front of the public. I've nothing against men or women that chose to be open in their relationships from doing the same thing, I just don't believe that co-opting a heterosexual ritual is the way to go.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[AaronScottDC]

<"and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

 

Hummmm, me thinks I have been with a few of these "three-quarters of married poeple" who say they have been faithful to their vows.

 

I love it when these so called "studies" try to compare gay relationships to straight marriages. If I had kids, a house, and lots of money tied up in a legally binding marriage, then I would probably stay with a spouse for a long time, too. But, we as gay men are free to come and go as we please without very many strings attached.

 

Divorces can get very messy. Therefore, IMO lots of people stay "married" and just say they are faithful to their vows. It is a lot easier and cheaper to do so.

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[tedbear]

I'd just like to make a comment on the original article. I think it misses one important point. It's comparing marriage--a legal contract which is further supported by society and family--to committed relationships that no matter how loving they may be, are not always supported or encouraged by society, families, landlords, neighbors, etc.

 

It's also interesting that the critics say we are too promiscuous and that we don't stay in relationships, all to make the point that we shouldn't be allowed to marry. They don't seem to realize they may be contradicting themselves. If straight couples didn't have the support of society nor the legal contract, they would probably be much less stable themselves. If we were allowed to marry (and were matter-of-factly supported by society and family), isn't it likely we stay together longer and more committed?

 

Personally, the main reason I would like to see gay marriage is for the legal right to inherit and make medical decisions. I known of/heard of too many who lost their homes and possessions to their lover's families after the death of the lover. And who couldn't visit their lover when he was dying in the hospital because the family wouldn't allow it. And those whose pacts with their partner to not start life support who had to watch their loved one die a slow agonizing death, only because the person who made the decision was someone who didn't really know or understand the lover's true wishes.

[axebahia]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

I agree with you totally on this one!

[Guest sniper]

The study should have compared cohabiting straight unmarried couples and gay couples to have any validity. Even then, who says that all or even most of the gay couples studied would choose to marry given the option? They might not. Unless you know which are the ones who would get married, you can't make assertions about homosexual "stability."

 

I love how all this is going on just as a decades-long adulterous relationship (Hepburn and Tracy) is being celebrated as one of the great love stories of the 20th century.

 

Also, large numbers of people, due to the paperwork issue stated above - only stay "married" out of convenience - e.g., Warren Buffett.

[pierrot]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

just remember the Washington Times is a Moony newspaper. It's hard to take anything seriously written by a lunatic cult.

[VaHawk]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

>MARRIAGE is not a guarantee of sexual

>fidelity, emotional faithfulness or happiness. Just come watch

>our business, as I've mentioned before, whenever a religious

>group or the <retch> 'promise keepers' come to Denver.

 

DUH!! Did I say otherwise??? BTW it is perfectly fine for you to denigrate the promise keepers but if they denigrate hookers they are what in your eyes? I bet it doesn't stop you from taking their money, right?

>

>If you think Marriage has a great track record of honoring a

>biological proclivity to settle down with a mate then you've

>never read a history book or talked to a woman in your life.

 

LOL! Want to banter on what history you have read versus me? Nope, with seven sisters I definitely have never talked to a woman in my life! Your presumptious attitude speaks volumes for you.

 

>I've nothing against men or women being monogamous and

>celebrating that commitment in front of the public. I've

>nothing against men or women that chose to be open in their

>relationships from doing the same thing, I just don't believe

>that co-opting a heterosexual ritual is the way to go.

 

Huh? Did I state otherwise, as I feel the same way?

[VaHawk]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

And yet you get all bent out of shape and post garbage about babboons and giraffes, etc. because someone disagrees with your way off base statement about marriage being an institution of men owning women. I would suggest that you do some reading of history and science, before you castigate others.

 

:-(

 

It is easy to spout off "so called facts" isn't it? I notice you cite no historical/scientific facts/studies in your reply, but just your own personal opinions. Are we supposed to be impressed?

 

Well, I'm sorry but I am not the least bit enthralled with your overwhelming intellectualism. I am especially impressed with your moral ethics in slamming your clients because of their personal religious/moral beliefs. Did you laugh before or after you took their money?

[+ Charlie]

My lover (yes, that's the term I prefer) and I have been in a committed relationship for 35 years--that's emotionally committed, not sexually. It was my second committed relationship; the first lasted five years, and it too was a sexually "open" relationship. Sexual openness had nothing to do with the failure of the first relationship, though it has probably guaranteed the success of the second one. Ironically, the first relationship had more of the appurtenances of a "marriage" (rings, merged bank accounts, etc.) than the second.

 

My partner and I wouldn't marry even if we could. What we want are the legal rights that heterosexual married couples have, not the social sanctions. Luckily, some of these can be achieved through domestic partnership agreements (for instance, my employment contract guarantees that he can use my medical benefits just as my wife would) or standard legal contracts, such as medical power of attorney. Most heterosexuals, however, really want more than this: they want the mystical powers conferred through the sacrament of marriage, as well as the social recognition that gives them a sense of identity. I can sympathize with homosexuals who want these things as well, but I believe that in a truly humane society, no one would care about defending marriage; instead, they would defend everyone's right to couple--in any form--with those he or she loves.

[giovoni]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

>DUH!! Did I say otherwise??? BTW it is perfectly fine for you

>to denigrate the promise keepers but if they denigrate hookers

>they are what in your eyes? I bet it doesn't stop you from

>taking their money, right?

 

I didn't denigrate them... I said I loved when they were in town. When they hire me and then denigrate hookers it makes them hypocrites.. is that hard to understand?

 

I'm ignoring your request for 'studies and historical documents' showing that marriage is a bad deal for women. If you would like to state that women have always had a sqare deal when it comes to marriage and that it's done nothing but brought them into equal partnerships that were advantageous for them you go right ahead and state that. It will speak volumes for what parts of history you've payed attention to.

 

>>I've nothing against men or women being monogamous and

>>celebrating that commitment in front of the public. I've

>>nothing against men or women that chose to be open in their

>>relationships from doing the same thing, I just don't

>believe that co-opting a heterosexual ritual is the way to go.

 

>Huh? Did I state otherwise, as I feel the same way?

 

You certainly implied otherwise by attacking my suspicions of marriage as an institution. By bringing up biological evidence of pairing up as a defense of marriage what other impression were you trying to leave?

[giovoni]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

>And yet you get all bent out of shape and post garbage about

>babboons and giraffes, etc. because someone disagrees with

>your way off base statement about marriage being an

>institution of men owning women. I would suggest that you do

>some reading of history and science, before you castigate

>others.

 

I'm not bent out of shape.. I find arguing fun and I enjoy the stimulation here. I do however have limits on my time and I'm not going to go around looking for studies illustrating that women have been treated unequally and unfairly where marriage is concerned. I find it slightly amusing that you would contest this as even if it's not the case today, though most marriages still strip a woman of her name, it certainly has been in the past in various times and places. Also I wasn't castigating "others" just you.. for equating an admittedly scientific observation that some animals pair up for life into the institution of marriage.

 

>It is easy to spout off "so called facts" isn't it? I notice

>you cite no historical/scientific facts/studies in your reply,

>but just your own personal opinions.

 

It is easy yes. And I stand by my opinions which actually I never really tried to pawn off as facts. I stated my opinions and others have agreed and you haven't.

 

>Are we supposed to be impressed?

 

If you ever are I'm going to rethink my opinions.

 

>Well, I'm sorry but I am not the least bit enthralled with

>your overwhelming intellectualism.

 

And yet.. somehow... I'll make it through the night.

 

>I am especially impressed with your moral ethics in slamming your >clients because of

>their personal religious/moral beliefs. Did you laugh before

>or after you took their money?

 

Once again I just said I loved when they were in town. I do, however question them occasionally on how they reconcile hiring me with the stated opinions and platforms of their particular organizations. Sometimes it leads to very interesting discussions and some outright admit that they are hypocrites. Which is fine, I make more friends debating and stimulating their minds then insulting and questioning their logic. I especially try to shy away from challenging anyone whom I disagree with to find scientific facts and studies to back up their opinions. I believe people can live their life and think through things just fine without finding someone with a Ph.D. to do a study for them. And when I do disagree with someone I try to think for myself logically and not just spit accusations of "no studies to back you up."

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[bluenix]

RE: Do you agree or not based on your experience/observ...

 

>And yet you get all bent out of shape and post garbage about

>babboons and giraffes, etc. because someone disagrees with

>your way off base statement about marriage being an

>institution of men owning women. I would suggest that you do

>some reading of history and science, before you castigate

>others.

 

Feminists have long denigrated the traditional wedding as nothing more than an elaborate celebration of property transfer. It goes something like this.

 

The female is dressed in an elaborate burqa that occludes her identity and turns her into an object suggesting both value and sexual purity. The object is brought down the aisle by its owner, the father, who publicly signifies his willingness to transfer ownership ("Who gives this woman in holy matrimony?" "I do.").

 

As part of the ceremony, the woman is expected to make vows of obedience to her new owner. She is also subject to "return" by the groom if she is found to have been used sexually by a man other than himself. (I believe Real Dolls makes the same claim, but only on new models.)

 

Etc., etc.